1 - 10 Next
It's not news when the left lies, cheats, or steals. Or engages in sexism, racism, or homophobia. It's only news when someone on the right does it.
In response to:

Did We Vote for War?

goatlockerloungelizard Wrote: Nov 18, 2014 1:32 PM
With the rigged two party system. it's not like we really get much of a choice. Like the kids on South Park when PETA forced them to vote on a new mascot because it was cruel to be named the Cows, the contest is often between a "Giant Do*che" and a "Tur& Sandwich". Either way - we lose.
In response to:

Did We Vote for War?

goatlockerloungelizard Wrote: Nov 18, 2014 12:13 PM
Politicians don't care what the people want. They prove every day they're contemptuous of us. And why shouldn't they be? Consider the incumbent reelection rate, even in the current state of our government and the prospects for our future. As for the WSJ, and every other media outet, it's consumer beware. They all have a point of view. And I believe it's healthy for Americans to be extremely skeptical of all the "news" - in every context.
More Christians should go into the entertainment business. And make some worthwhile shows and movies. I'm sure there's a large untapped market for tasteful, intelligent programming out there somewhere (find somebody with more talent than Kirk Cameron). Maybe some of that 700 Club money, or some of the other long-dollar Christian ministry organizations would be willing to bankroll you.
In response to:

Educational Fraud

goatlockerloungelizard Wrote: Nov 12, 2014 11:11 AM
Between the public school cartel, minimum wage, occupational licensing restrictions, the war on drigs, gun control, and the FICA hustle, government does a magnificent job keeping a brother down (three generations and counting!). And it does so with the full complicity of many black accomplices in politics and government - the real Uncle Toms.
In response to:

Scholar-Athlete Charade

goatlockerloungelizard Wrote: Nov 05, 2014 2:08 PM
Yeah, because the two major parties have done such a bang-up job of setting this country up for long-term prosperity and peace, we can't alllow for anything that might jeopardize their power by giving the stupid masses more choices. Good thinking.
In response to:

Scholar-Athlete Charade

goatlockerloungelizard Wrote: Nov 05, 2014 11:37 AM
You gotta love the wrank hypocrisy of millionaire coaches, AD's, and NCAA administrators who insist that players must continue to provide their services merely for a largely worthless (not to mention non-existent) "education" in order to retain the "purity" of their sport. That level of audacious opportunism and exploitation would make a politician blush (if they were capable of human emotions such as remorse or empathy, that is).
Then, to add insut to injury, when the fake "conservatives" policies and administrations fail, the media blames "conservatism" itself - just as they did with W.
The table will always be tilted towards more activist government. It's the structural incentives, and it's inevitable. Consider Pat's two examples of shifts in consensus - '32 and '80. FDR led to a never-ending expansion of the state to mind-boggling proportions. But Reagan didn't reverse the trend. He didn't even slow it down. He talked the talk of smaller government, and the people said "yeah!". But walking that walk is a completely different matter. And if a man as skilled as Reagan couldn't do it, what hope does any of today's GOP leaders have? If smaller government is ever to have its day, it will take a groundswell movement of public opinion of overwhelming force, sufficient to overcome the media and politicians of both parties - all of whom thrive on constant crisis (real and manufactured) that favor "doing something" over hands-off.
But what about the poverty experienced by the Clintons when they left the WH? Penniless and hungry, I think Hillary had to sell newspapers on a median strip in Queens while Bill swept chimneys.
1 - 10 Next